Replies

If I remember correctly RNA and DNA analysis became important because it was a means to confirm the human migration findings of *LINGUISTS**. They were using plain ole molecular biochemistry to do this. No one investigating this was interested in macro-evolution ( the processes needed for the **apperances** of Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species. )

While I agree that those **few** scientists who are actually engaged in studying the processes needed for the **appearances** of Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species find RNA and DNA changes ***very*** useful, the rest of the scientific world could’t give a **twit** as to when anything emerged from the slime.

How many scientists are actually **doing** this work of investigating the emergence of Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species find RNA ? Huh? A handful in the world?

The rest of the scientists of the world ( this even includes biologists) don't give a twit about estimating time back to to most common ancestor. It has **nothing** at to do with their daily scientific investigations.

Next, time a I see my daughter I will ask her if she still has her old college textbook of biology and science majors. I will get the author's name. You can write to him and ask him why he only allotted FOUR to FIVE pages to macro-evolution ( the processes needed for the **appearances** of Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species. )

I **personally*** am NOT rejecting macro-evolution (the processes needed for the **appearances** of Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species. )..but...I think we need some perspective here as to its importance. Evidently the author of daughter's college text gave it FOUR to FIVE pages.

The reason there are so many cat fights about this is government power and the government school's trampling of freedom of conscience. Get government out of the K-12 business and all this contention will fade away.

In a completely private system of K-12 schooling:

*Some will choose an atheistic worldview and teach science in a materialist manner with secular humanist political, cultural, and religious consequences. This would include the study of macro-evolution.

* Some will take the **exact same content** taught by the first group but teach it within a framework of a God-centered worldview. This too will have political and cultural consequences. This would include the study of macro-evolution.

* And some will ignore macro-evolution completely. I don't agree with these people, but if their kids don't get this information it is not a lifetime catastrophe. They are not likely to need it for their life's work, and if they do, they can **easily** make up the difference with a course at a community college.

Yes, a single course at a community college and they will know much more than you about the subject, but probably still not enough to make any contribution to the field or to get employed in the field or to understand the subject fully.

The entire field of Molecular Evolution deals with what you call “macro” evolution. So do the fields of genomic analysis, and phylogenetic.

The journal “The Society for Molecular Biology and Evolution”, among other, publish their research.

Your claim that it is somehow unneeded by biologists is contradicted by the work biologists publish.

Evolution and the common descent of species is critical to biological understanding of life.

Before you go looking for Macro-evolution in text books you should realize their is no such scientific theory.

Their is simply Evolution.

The macro/micro non-distinction was created by creationists after even they could no longer deny the evidence for evolution.

It’s nonsense.

BTW quote: ‘her old college textbook of biology and science majors.’

We’re supposed to believe you have a doctorate in a science? (from Bob Jones?) You don’t speak the language well enough to pass.

I think your looking for the term ‘college biology text’.